How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

Alpha Romeo. The name that carried Nino Farina to the initial drivers championship in 1950 and then Fangio a year later.

Alpha Romeo. The name that has entered 110 races, winning 10.

Alpha Romeo. The name that will now re-enter F1 for all intents and purposes as nothing more than a feeder team. A second tier team who's goal will not be to work its way to the top and win races and championships but to be Ferrari's bitch and day care centre.

I love this sport but i'm so over this crappy two tiered system that's evolved in the last decade and particularly in the last 5 yrs or so mainly due to the complexity of these engines and the restrictive development policy. RB started this crap by buying Minardi, re-naming it Toro Rosso and turning it into their feeder team and now its pretty much at the point where half the grid has practically no chance of climbing the ladder to the top because they're either a feeder team or the manufacturer team that supplies the engine to them has removed a page or two missing from the users manual thus preventing them from competing on equal footing.

Yeah I know the sports always had teams with no real chance of winning but that was never by design or intent. All things being equal, teams had the opportunity to rise to the top given the funding, a good engine deal, a smart design team, a good driver and a bit of luck.

Now it's impossible. The days when the likes of Eddie Jordan, Guy Ligier, Frank Williams or Ron Dennis could raise the capital, have a go and work their way to the top sadly seem to be long gone. The manufacturers now have a stranglehold on the sport and with each deal like the Alpha one another potentially competitive spot on the grid vanishes.

The shining lights in all this are of course Williams, McLaren & Haas but until the engine regs change to hopefully a simpler design that'll allow and encourage teams like them to go out and sign an engine deal independent of the manufacturer teams, even they don't stand a realistic chance of a championship or even a win for that matter, though that may change for Macca next year.

_________________ Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your ar$e, cricket is not. - Keith Miller, Australian cricket legend and WWII pilot.

I'm pretty sure they'll at least finish more races with Sauber than they in their last stint as an engine supplier in F1 (or as a constructor for that matter). Their time with Osella makes Honda's last few seasons look positively successful

This will ensure 2 things. The car gets new fresh spec engines next season. No way FIAT will allow team to run with old Ferrari engines.This is basically a true Ferrari sister team now. They will run new engines and probably Ferrari gearbox and as many components as allowed within regulations now.

Its not a bad deal for sauber or for F1 fans. We might just get more heated mid field next year.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

Alpha Romeo. The name that carried Nino Farina to the initial drivers championship in 1950 and then Fangio a year later.

Alpha Romeo. The name that has entered 110 races, winning 10.

Alpha Romeo. The name that will now re-enter F1 for all intents and purposes as nothing more than a feeder team. A second tier team who's goal will not be to work its way to the top and win races and championships but to be Ferrari's bitch and day care centre.

I love this sport but i'm so over this crappy two tiered system that's evolved in the last decade and particularly in the last 5 yrs or so mainly due to the complexity of these engines and the restrictive development policy. RB started this crap by buying Minardi, re-naming it Toro Rosso and turning it into their feeder team and now its pretty much at the point where half the grid has practically no chance of climbing the ladder to the top because they're either a feeder team or the manufacturer team that supplies the engine to them has removed a page or two missing from the users manual thus preventing them from competing on equal footing.

Yeah I know the sports always had teams with no real chance of winning but that was never by design or intent. All things being equal, teams had the opportunity to rise to the top given the funding, a good engine deal, a smart design team, a good driver and a bit of luck.

Now it's impossible. The days when the likes of Eddie Jordan, Guy Ligier, Frank Williams or Ron Dennis could raise the capital, have a go and work their way to the top sadly seem to be long gone. The manufacturers now have a stranglehold on the sport and with each deal like the Alpha one another potentially competitive spot on the grid vanishes.

The shining lights in all this are of course Williams, McLaren & Haas but until the engine regs change to hopefully a simpler design that'll allow and encourage teams like them to go out and sign an engine deal independent of the manufacturer teams, even they don't stand a realistic chance of a championship or even a win for that matter, though that may change for Macca next year.

I wholeheartedly agree, I don't like seeing 'junior teams' either. It's hard to see how it benefits the sport when you watch Toro Rossos waving Red Bulls past and then proceeding to hold up their rivals. Admittedly it's less common now that the senior team aren't in the title fight, but back when Vettel was winning his four titles it was quite common. Though of course the other things you'd need for the lower teams to be able to compete is for the top teams (especially one in particular) to stop hoarding all the TV revenue, and to remove the current unfair Strategy Group arrangement where only the top teams (especially one in particular) have the power to influence the regulations.

Just think, Bernie's vision a few years ago was for a two-tier formula with 5 senior teams supplying entire customer cars to 5 junior teams. I'm so thankful that didn't happen.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

Well, I already explained; success of fifties as well as in sportcars and touring cars, makes Alfa Romeo successful name in motorsport in general. They already shattered away their good reputation in the 80's with their spell in F1. And being a feeder team to Ferrari would only do them worse.

However, this is the time of globalization where brands are just the names in the hand of the big corporations.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

I'm going to be pedantic here, because I've just done some research and basically I can be.

The Sauber C5 won the 1976 Interserie Championship. In both 1977 and 1978 it was leading its class at Le Mans before breaking down. That's the only major success I can find though. Still, one championship is better than none which a few of their rivals have.

_________________Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

I'm going to be pedantic here, because I've just done some research and basically I can be.

The Sauber C5 won the 1976 Interserie Championship. In both 1977 and 1978 it was leading its class at Le Mans before breaking down. That's the only major success I can find though. Still, one championship is better than none which a few of their rivals have.

If this makes Sauber more competitive then it has to be a good thing. I'd rather have some half decent junior teams than Caterhams and HRT's 5-10 seconds off the pace.

If this is what it takes to keep a fuller grid with better opportunities to assess young drivers then it's the least worst option.

Assess young drivers in the lower classes.

So it's now ok for the pinnacle formulae in world motorsport to have grids where half the field is governed by the other half ?

Is this really the direction we want the sport to head?

Teams who are 'B' teams are always going to be 'B' teams and the first to be unloaded if the boss loses interest. Look at STR. They were a good team before being taken over, and have gone backwards ever since. When signs of life were seen, the 'A' team snatch the sparks away just in case they had to be concerned about them being a challenge.

A 'B' team is always going to be operating at a lower level than the main teams, by their very nature.

Teams who are 'B' teams are always going to be 'B' teams and the first to be unloaded if the boss loses interest. Look at STR. They were a good team before being taken over, and have gone backwards ever since. When signs of life were seen, the 'A' team snatch the sparks away just in case they had to be concerned about them being a challenge.

A 'B' team is always going to be operating at a lower level than the main teams, by their very nature.

Toro Rosso didn't go backwards, it's Red Bull that went forwards. If STR holds on to 6th place this year it will equal their best-ever season finish in 2008.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

I'm going to be pedantic here, because I've just done some research and basically I can be.

The Sauber C5 won the 1976 Interserie Championship. In both 1977 and 1978 it was leading its class at Le Mans before breaking down. That's the only major success I can find though. Still, one championship is better than none which a few of their rivals have.

Just to add a little, Sauber C9 Mercedes won Le Mans 24 Hours outright in 1989.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

I'm going to be pedantic here, because I've just done some research and basically I can be.

The Sauber C5 won the 1976 Interserie Championship. In both 1977 and 1978 it was leading its class at Le Mans before breaking down. That's the only major success I can find though. Still, one championship is better than none which a few of their rivals have.

Just to add a little, Sauber C9 Mercedes won Le Mans 24 Hours outright in 1989.

Sauber won more than just Le Mans in 1989, they also won the World Sportscar Championship as well. Sauber cars were 1,2,3, &4th in the championship!

Sauber also won the 1990 World Sportscar Championship!

Sauber was quite successful in racing before they joined Formula One and became the complete non factors that they have become.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

Alfa has Several World Championships in fact... including F1 (dominating in the first couple of years before pulling out), winning in BTC, DTM, ETCC, SCCA, as well as, 11 mille Miglia, 10 Targa Florio, and 4 LeMans wins. A very rich racing history mactched by few.

In an absolutely ideal world, we would have 10 teams all trying to beat each other. But that just isn't realistic in this day and age.

Why not?

I think it absolutely is realistic and the sport should be making the appropriate changes to its governance and structure to move in this direction. Now there's nothing wrong with having some level of pecking order with 'big' teams and 'small' teams but the gulf between them should not be as large as it is right now.

In an absolutely ideal world, we would have 10 teams all trying to beat each other. But that just isn't realistic in this day and age.

Why not?

I think it absolutely is realistic and the sport should be making the appropriate changes to its governance and structure to move in this direction. Now there's nothing wrong with having some level of pecking order with 'big' teams and 'small' teams but the gulf between them should not be as large as it is right now.

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

In an absolutely ideal world, we would have 10 teams all trying to beat each other. But that just isn't realistic in this day and age.

Why not?

I think it absolutely is realistic and the sport should be making the appropriate changes to its governance and structure to move in this direction. Now there's nothing wrong with having some level of pecking order with 'big' teams and 'small' teams but the gulf between them should not be as large as it is right now.

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

Well it all depends on ones definition of the word competitive when it comes to F1.

For me, I don't call having half the grid subservient to the other half and not being in a position to win races / championships not because their wallet is smaller than other teams but because they're not allowed as competitive. I call it a facade.

I'd rather see a set of regulations in place, including more reasonable distribution of prizemoney, sensible, affordable engine policy, removal of power from the teams and incentives for new, well funded independent teams to enter, that'd see teams like Jordan, Ligier, Williams etc enter the sport knowing that if all goes right, they have the opportunity to get points and podiums, grown enough to maybe jag a win or two and who knows, eventually win championships.

I don't think that's unrealistic, even in this day and age.

_________________ Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your ar$e, cricket is not. - Keith Miller, Australian cricket legend and WWII pilot.

In an absolutely ideal world, we would have 10 teams all trying to beat each other. But that just isn't realistic in this day and age.

Why not?

I think it absolutely is realistic and the sport should be making the appropriate changes to its governance and structure to move in this direction. Now there's nothing wrong with having some level of pecking order with 'big' teams and 'small' teams but the gulf between them should not be as large as it is right now.

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

Well it all depends on ones definition of the word competitive when it comes to F1.

For me, I don't call having half the grid subservient to the other half and not being in a position to win races / championships not because their wallet is smaller than other teams but because they're not allowed as competitive. I call it a facade.

I'd rather see a set of regulations in place, including more reasonable distribution of prizemoney, sensible, affordable engine policy, removal of power from the teams and incentives for new, well funded independent teams to enter, that'd see teams like Jordan, Ligier, Williams etc enter the sport knowing that if all goes right, they have the opportunity to get points and podiums, grown enough to maybe jag a win or two and who knows, eventually win championships.

I don't think that's unrealistic, even in this day and age.

You have to remove power from the engine manufacturers too. They cannot have ANY say whatsoever in how the sport is run.

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

Well it all depends on ones definition of the word competitive when it comes to F1.

For me, I don't call having half the grid subservient to the other half and not being in a position to win races / championships not because their wallet is smaller than other teams but because they're not allowed as competitive. I call it a facade.

I'd rather see a set of regulations in place, including more reasonable distribution of prizemoney, sensible, affordable engine policy, removal of power from the teams and incentives for new, well funded independent teams to enter, that'd see teams like Jordan, Ligier, Williams etc enter the sport knowing that if all goes right, they have the opportunity to get points and podiums, grown enough to maybe jag a win or two and who knows, eventually win championships.

I don't think that's unrealistic, even in this day and age.

You have to remove power from the engine manufacturers too. They cannot have ANY say whatsoever in how the sport is run.

The sport would not exist were it not for engine manufacturers... starting with Ferrari, Alfa, Maserati, Mercedes... all the way through today. So you would have the engine manufacturers just quietly provide the engines... have no say... or *inaudible* off. That is the F1 you want?

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

Well it all depends on ones definition of the word competitive when it comes to F1.

For me, I don't call having half the grid subservient to the other half and not being in a position to win races / championships not because their wallet is smaller than other teams but because they're not allowed as competitive. I call it a facade.

I'd rather see a set of regulations in place, including more reasonable distribution of prizemoney, sensible, affordable engine policy, removal of power from the teams and incentives for new, well funded independent teams to enter, that'd see teams like Jordan, Ligier, Williams etc enter the sport knowing that if all goes right, they have the opportunity to get points and podiums, grown enough to maybe jag a win or two and who knows, eventually win championships.

I don't think that's unrealistic, even in this day and age.

You have to remove power from the engine manufacturers too. They cannot have ANY say whatsoever in how the sport is run.

The sport would not exist were it not for engine manufacturers... starting with Ferrari, Alfa, Maserati, Mercedes... all the way through today. So you would have the engine manufacturers just quietly provide the engines... have no say... or *inaudible* off. That is the F1 you want?

They say Enzo Ferrari only began building cars to 'get back at' Alfa who did him as a driver.

I meant to say 10 competitive teams. Or at least 10 teams with the potential to be competitive.

But it shouldn't come at any price. We don't need F1 budgets slashed and get to the point where the cars are GP2 level just so anyone can have a go.

It should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport with track records tumbling year on year.

Well it all depends on ones definition of the word competitive when it comes to F1.

For me, I don't call having half the grid subservient to the other half and not being in a position to win races / championships not because their wallet is smaller than other teams but because they're not allowed as competitive. I call it a facade.

I'd rather see a set of regulations in place, including more reasonable distribution of prizemoney, sensible, affordable engine policy, removal of power from the teams and incentives for new, well funded independent teams to enter, that'd see teams like Jordan, Ligier, Williams etc enter the sport knowing that if all goes right, they have the opportunity to get points and podiums, grown enough to maybe jag a win or two and who knows, eventually win championships.

I don't think that's unrealistic, even in this day and age.

You have to remove power from the engine manufacturers too. They cannot have ANY say whatsoever in how the sport is run.

The sport would not exist were it not for engine manufacturers... starting with Ferrari, Alfa, Maserati, Mercedes... all the way through today. So you would have the engine manufacturers just quietly provide the engines... have no say... or *inaudible* off. That is the F1 you want?

Yes, as it used to be. Today's engine manufacturers effectively run the sport. That was demonstrably not true in the past. There was enough competition amongst the engine builders that if one was not happy, they would be told to *inaudible* off and go away. Today that does not happen.

How successful are they, though, really? They had a brief moment of competitiveness in 2007/8, but otherwise they've been a fairly consistent back-half-of-the-grid team. I think their glory days are pretty long ago, personally. If this gives them a chance to be reasonably competitive again, it can only be positive, surely?

He's calling Alfa Romeo a successful name, not Sauber. Which is even more bizarre.

The Alfa Romeo name has world championships attached to it. Does Sauber?

Whether Sauber is a World Championship winning team or not, it doesn't mean they aren't good enough to be associated with a "brand" that won the championship in it's inaugural season from just 7 races out of 25 some 70 years ago.

The name yes, the brand itself however has sucked for decades now and is just now experiencing a resurgence thanks to their parent company feeling like they want to make the name relevant once more. Their last hoorah was in the mid 80's to early 90's and they bombed almost as badly as Peugot and Renault did in the states during that very period. With Renault and Peugot however is was a lack of brand recognition by the masses of the people here and back then (before the internet - LOL) people tended to shy away from vehicle brands (and things in general) they didn't recognize and that's why those brands bombed. AR bombed because the cars proved unreliable junk and the repair fees were through the roof and the decision was made to pull the brand on this side of the pond. In Miami there were loads of Alfa's and then they literally disappeared.

Sauber may not be a championship winning team but they have proven so good that many of their original concepts and ideas trickled down to every team in the sport and so many of their engineers trickled down to literally every team as well. And then there's the impressive list of top level drivers THEY brought into the sport, which I'd venture to say is more than most of the top teams have done until Red Bull created the Jr Team Model and driver development program. As such, I'd say AR is lucky to be associated with the Hinwil squad, which I may add is one of the few teams who actually resides in the country they represent in the sport and one who built it's own wind tunnel which is one of the best in the world to the point other teams have used it. I'm trying to think of anything noteworthy Alfa-Romeo has accomplished in the automotive industry in this century and I can't because they've been almost non existent.

The name yes, the brand itself however has sucked for decades now and is just now experiencing a resurgence thanks to their parent company feeling like they want to make the name relevant once more. Their last hoorah was in the mid 80's to early 90's and they bombed almost as badly as Peugot and Renault did in the states during that very period. With Renault and Peugot however is was a lack of brand recognition by the masses of the people here and back then (before the internet - LOL) people tended to shy away from vehicle brands (and things in general) they didn't recognize and that's why those brands bombed. AR bombed because the cars proved unreliable junk and the repair fees were through the roof and the decision was made to pull the brand on this side of the pond. In Miami there were loads of Alfa's and then they literally disappeared.

Sauber may not be a championship winning team but they have proven so good that many of their original concepts and ideas trickled down to every team in the sport and so many of their engineers trickled down to literally every team as well. And then there's the impressive list of top level drivers THEY brought into the sport, which I'd venture to say is more than most of the top teams have done until Red Bull created the Jr Team Model and driver development program. As such, I'd say AR is lucky to be associated with the Hinwil squad, which I may add is one of the few teams who actually resides in the country they represent in the sport and one who built it's own wind tunnel which is one of the best in the world to the point other teams have used it. I'm trying to think of anything noteworthy Alfa-Romeo has accomplished in the automotive industry in this century and I can't because they've been almost non existent.

The name is the whole point, and the Alfa racing name is not the same as the questionable car company. The point being made is that you shouldn't bring back a racing name with history and pedigree and then force it into being a Ferrari B team: the real Alfa Romeo fought and defeated Ferrari in the 50s. This one is going to play lackey to them.

You can make a good argument that the Alfa Romeo that was successful in racing is long dead - in which case, why not leave it that way?